§ [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words, "now considered," and to insert instead thereof the words, "recommitted to the former Committee for the purpose of considering the liability of a corporation for alterations and maintenance of roads used by trolley vehicles."
I had hoped up to the last moment that there would have been no need but to move this Amendment formally, because a settlement would have been arrived at between the conflicting parties, and the terms arranged would have rendered it unnecessary to do more than move the Amendment in order to make a general statement. I am sorry to say that at the last moment I understand that a settlement is not agreeable to the Keighley Corporation, therefore I have no option but to press the Amendment. I may say at once that there is no desire whatever on the part of the county council in any way to harass the Borough of Keighley. The borough is in the county council area, and the county council wish to do nothing to retard their progress or harass their trolley system. All they wish to do is to secure fair play for the rest of the county when a system of trackless trolleys is put on the roads in the Riding. I have put the Amendment in as unaggressive a form as possible. We do not in any way wish that the main question as to the liability between the county council and the boroughs in matters of this kind should be decided upon an isolated issue. All that we ask is that this matter should go back to the Committee for reconsideration, with a view to some settlement between the parties. We do not ask that the main principle should be settled now.
1928 This is a matter which is most important to the West Riding, because from the growth of large boroughs throughout the Riding, there is constantly, and, in the near future, there will be far more constantly, the demand for new systems of trackless trolleys, and it is absolutely necessary that the county council should learn in what position it is to stand as to the contributions which will be made by the boroughs that are putting these trackless trolley systems on the roads towards their maintenance, and towards the cost of widening the roads because of those systems. The county council ask that the extra cost of maintenance of the roads which will be thrown upon the county ratepayers shall be paid by those responsible for putting the trolley system upon those roads. They also ask that the cost of any extra widening rendered necessary by the existence of those trolleys should be paid for by the corporation putting them upon the roads. We suggest that the amount of work necessary and the cost which will be thrown upon the respective parties should be decided by the arbitration, if necessary, of the Board of Trade. I think the House will agree that it is an eminently reasonable suggestion. The corporation get the profits on the trolley system, and we say that if the general county ratepayers suffer any loss it should fall, not upon the county rates, but upon the body which is receiving the profits of the undertaking Just as other businesses are compelled to make good any damage they inflict on the roads, so in this case the same principle should prevail in the case of Keighley. These trolleys are estimated to weigh about five tons, and they are to run nine miles six furlongs on the main roads, and four miles five furlongs on the district roads. We ask that in each case, whether it be a main road or a district road, that the body which bears the cost of putting the road in order shall be recouped for the extra expenditure incurred by the placing of those trolleys upon them.
This is a different case altogether from that of a tramway or motor 'bus system. In the case of a tramway, it can be rated, but it also has the obligation of maintaining its track. In this case, it is urged against us that the trackless trolley plant can be rated, but we say that, like the tramway, the trackless trolleys shall be made to maintain their own repairs. As regards the motor 'bus, it is different. It does more harm to the roads than probably the trolley system does, but the motor 'bus can be got at. The West Riding roads 1929 cost in urban districts, such as those in the immediate neighbourhood of Keighley, an average of £291 per mile, and in the rural or less urban districts the average cost is £130 per mile. I say this to show that the ratepayers throughout the greater part of the county in the West Riding are already paying in excess of what they want for their own roads because of the expense of the roads in such places as the neighbourhood of Keighley. It is very unfair that this extra burden, which is thrown upon the county ratepayers as a whole, should be increased by the starting of a system such as this without any adequate compensation being given to the county as a whole. It is said that the borough of Keighley pays a very large contribution to the West Riding, and more than is actually required to keep its own roads in order. That may be true, but the traffic of Keighley is not confined only to roads actually inside the borough of Keighley. The traffic extends all over the roads in the immediate neighbourhood, and it is only fair that they should pay something towards the maintenance of the general roads, besides the maintenance of the actual roads within the borough. A large amount of traffic appertaining to the borough itself comes over a great many roads, and is of no particular advantage to the ratepayers of those districts, therefore we say that the corporation should have this burden put upon them.
The Bill gives no compensation for the extra cost of maintenance to the county. It only makes the corporation pay one-third of the cost of any widening operations which may be necessary, and it prescribes that the roads should not be of excessive width; not more than twenty feet in the case of main roads, and not more than seventeen feet in the case of district roads, widths which we contend are not adequate, and which certainly represent a minimum of what ought to be in the case of a trolley system of this kind working among considerable traffic. We ask for the cost of maintenance, of widening and of alterations. We ask that the amount of the work to be done and of the expenditure thrown on the respective parties should be subject to arbitration by the Board of Trade. I believe the argument is used that the plant of the trolley system can be rated and that that ought to be brought into consideration. Obviously it would be in any arbitration, but that only affects a general rate. The extra money produced thereby could not be earmarked for the roads alone, and 1930 therefore it does not represent the same balance of contribution. You can only rate a system of this sort on its profits, and, therefore, supposing there is no considerable profit, the power of rating would be a very small compensation. I ask that the question shall be reconsidered, especially as a different decision has been arrived at in the case of the more general legislation which has passed the Committee stage. The matter was not decided upon by the Committee with any unanimity, and I understand they had considerable doubt about it, and I hope the House will allow the matter to be reconsidered, especially in view of the fact that up to the very last moment we hoped for a settlement. I hope even now some settlement may be arrived at and that this will not have to be fought out.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSI beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to give reasons for recommitting the Bill which are in accordance with what the hon. Member has said, but which raise a very much larger issue, which, I think, can only be decided in this House and not in the Committee. I am reluctant to oppose the decision of a Private Bill Committee so long as it relates to local conditions and does not effect either any alterations in the general law or anticipate or prejudge any alteration in the law which is certain to take place in a little while. Therefore I wish to present to the House certain reasons which appear to me to apply to this Bill, but which do not apply to many Bills of this character, as to which the defeated party upstairs desire to get a reversal of their fortunes on the floor of this House. If this were merely a question between the desires of Keighley and the West Riding Council on a matter which affected only those two authorities, whatever my opinion might be on the merits of the case, I should certainly not support the rehearing, but it so happens that this matter is quite different. Trackless trollies are a comparatively new invention, and they have only quite recently become the subject of private Bill legislation. I am quite sure every Member of the House, especially if he has made any study of local government, will agree that it is very desirable that there should be some general law, adequately discussed in Parliament before it is enacted, which deals with the identical problems which arise all over the country in connection with Bills like this. It is obvious that any vigorous and pro- 1931 gressive urban authority which feels that it has, in the promotion of a Bill to enable it to put up a system of trackless trollies, an opportunity of doing good in its area, will consider, and in some cases decide on trying to get Parliamentary sanction for running these trollies, not only within their area, but in adjacent areas as well. And when that is the case, as it is in the case of this Bill, it is obvious that the same problem arises, namely, what are to be the terms on which one local authority is to be permitted to carry on its laudable enterprise in the area of another local authority, and if you get an enterprise of this kind which affects the user of roads, which affects the cost of the maintenance of those roads, which complicates the problem of road administration but complicates it in precisely the same fashion, whether it may have arisen in Yorkshire or in Kent, it is surely reasonable that Parliament should lay down some rule of general application, and it is desirable for another reason to avoid the enormous expense of public money.
If this is to be decided, as is pleasantly but somewhat inconclusively phrased, on the merits of each case by Committees upstairs, it means that there will be prolonged discussions, in which the particular details are emphasised to the partial concealment of the principle, and in which the fortunes of each case depend partly on the composition of the Committee, partly on the persistence of persons interested, and partly on other Parliamentary considerations. Accordingly, has not the time come when there should be general legislation on this point, and when no class of local authority, be it county council or borough council, should prejudge the character of such legislation by getting a particular decision in a particular case? Not only is that a position which, I hope, will appear reasonable to the House, but it is a position which coincides with the present position of affairs. The Light Railways Bill, which now awaits the Report stage, a Bill for which the Board of Trade are responsible, is intended to deal with this very condition of affairs and to lay down conditions of universal application throughout England under which trackless trollies are to be regulated and under which authorities seeking to develop such things are to act. And therefore my plea to the House is not to take sides either with Keighley or with the county council, but to see that this particular Bill does not pass into law, or, at any rate, become 1932 operative, until both Houses of Parliament have had a reasonable opportunity of settling the general law on the subject.
In saying this I hope the House will credit me when I state that I am not speaking for the county authorities against the borough authorities or for the borough authorities against the county authorities. I have the good fortune to be associated with the authority of one county in England, and I represent two non-county boroughs in another county in England, and therefore I have opportunities of hearing both points of view from those who know them best. All I am anxious for is that we should not come to a decision which one class of authorities would like and another class of authorities would detest, but that we should get a general decision, to which I am confident all loyal authorities, whether in counties or boroughs, would agree. You have a Bill dealing with this matter on general lines. It has had its First and Second Readings, it has passed through Grand Committee, and is waiting the Report stage in the House. At the same time you have the Bill with reference to which this Amendment to recommit is made, and which in some of its Clauses deals with precisely the same problem. This Bill deals with the question as it applies to only one borough and county, and decides in a particular way. Is it not desirable, in the interest of good government, of hindering wanton expenditure of public funds and of getting a general rule detached from local controversy, that we should get our general Bill passed into law before particular legislation is brought into effect in any particular locality? May I anticipate the possible answer? It may be said that the Committee bring up this Bill after careful consideration, whereas the general Bill has still to run its chances in this House, and both Bills, of course, have their fortunes elsewhere. May I point out that all who are interested in local government and in municipal enterprise are alike anxious to get the general question settled promptly. There is no question of hanging up a private Bill—of proposing to reconsider it in order to destroy it. If this Bill is recommitted with the view of bringing its provisions into harmony with general legislation there is no risk whatever of its being postponed indefinitely. Every one of the boroughs and counties are interested in this form of enterprise, and I imagine the authorities of both Houses know how important it is to get some general rule.
1933 From every point of view it is now urgent that the general question should be settled. If that be the case, as I really believe it is, I ask the House—I do not say to accept my belief but to investigate the causes of it. If they did so, then I think they would share it. Is it desirable on a private Bill to make a precedent which will be embarrassing to general legislation which, if it takes one form, may put the borough of Keighley in a position of undue advantage, and, if it takes another form, may put the West Hiding in a position of unfair advantage as compared with others? Is that a reasonable thing to do? I second the Motion to recommit the Bill because, as I understand the forms of the House, that is the only possible opportunity of getting this controversy—as to which I do not myself take sides—solved by bringing it under general legislation of application throughout the country. I do hope both my hon. Friend and the Chairman of Committees, who is the authority on this class of problem, will agree that this is a reasonable thing to do. If that be the case, the only way of getting to that conclusion is by having the Bill recommitted. I earnestly support the Amendment, not disregarding my hon. Friend's particular argument and not disregarding the particular argument which may have led to the Committee's decision, but for the purpose of putting before the House the far wider issues raised. I earnestly ask the House to take this, the only, means of preventing the problem being prejudiced in a particular instance, and of showing how anxious we all are to get settled as soon as possible general legislation which would prevent controversies of this kind in future.
§ Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONThe hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Lane-Fox) put the matter fairly and squarely from the point of view of the county council. I have not much to complain of in respect of what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins), except to say that it seems to me there is great risk of the Bill being hung up if this Amendment is carried. No doubt the Light Railways Bill is before the House at the present time. It has passed through the Committee stage and is awaiting the Report stage, but it is by no means certain that it will pass during this Session or next Session, and in the meantime we think it is rather hard that Keighley Corporation should be called upon to wait until the Light Rail- 1934 ways Bill has been passed. At the same time, I am very glad this matter has come up for discussion, for it seems to me the matter is one of very considerable importance, both as affecting local government and transit. It is bound to affect all the big towns in the near future. At the same time it is a matter of regret that it comes up on a private Bill. I should have very much preferred that the point had been raised on the Light Railways Bill, but as we have to deal with things as they are this Bill comes up for our consideration now. I should add that the decision of the Local Legislation Committee on this point is the same as the attitude taken up by the Government on the Light Railways Bill, upon which, I understand, the Government were defeated in the Grand Committee. The point is raised in connection with the construction of a trackless trolley undertaken by Keighley Corporation to run outside the boundary of the borough.
Trackless trolleys are an entirely new idea. They were first undertaken by the towns of Leeds and Bradford, but in neither of these cases was power asked to run outside the boundary of the borough. At the same time we must consider whether in a case where that is proposed the authority which ran the trackless trolley should be liable for part of the cost of the repair of a road outside the boundary of that authority. I understand that a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade did actually sit on this question, and they arrived at this conclusion, that it was impossible to settle a definite sum per car mile as a proper contribution to be made towards the repair of the road which would be applicable all over the country. If the House will consider the point for a moment, it will be seen that the sum which would be sufficient contribution for the hard roads of the North would be manifestly insufficient when you are going to run trackless trolley-cars over the soft chalk roads of Kent and Sussex. The Departmental Committee, I understand, came to the conclusion that each case must be dealt with upon its own merits. The counsel appearing before the Local Legislation Committee (Mr. Hutchinson) has had great experience in all these cases. He went through all the precedents, and I may divide them up under their separate heads. It must be remembered that Leeds and Bradford are both county boroughs controlling their own roads for which they are responsible, and for the repairs of which they are compelled themselves to provide. I understand that 1935 in Bradford no damage has been done at all to the road, out of the ordinary course. The same thing applies to Leeds, over half the road on which the trackless trolley runs. The other half of the road had never been properly made up, and there was consequently a certain amount of damage done, but the damage was small. The next case that came up was that of Newcastle. Here, again, the Committee which considered the Bill struck out all the portions of these trackless-trolley roads which lay outside the county borough. Consequently the Newcastle case fell into the same category as Leeds and Bradford. The next case was Aberdare. In that case the application was originally for tramways; it was refused by a Committee of the other House. Here there was a small piece of county road which the urban district council of Aberdare had done up out of their own funds—why they forgot to say to the Committee. There was subsequently an application to run trackless-trolleys over this road. The county council claimed that the urban district council should continue to do the repairs; but the Committee of the other House declined to put upon the urban district council the duty of maintaining this county road, which is exactly the case of the Keighley Corporation at the present day.
The next case is Rotherham, which is a county borough, and there was an application for a trackless-trolley outside the borough. This was again opposed by the county council of West Riding on the same ground, and the corporation made an agreement to pay the county council three-eighths of a penny per car mile, or £150 per annum whichever should be greater. This was an agreement, and not a condition imposed by Parliament. In fact, I do not know that the matter was even discussed before the Committee, and also it must be remembered that this agreement covered many other points, and it does not follow that the three-eighths of a penny covers the cost of the repairs of these roads, but that many other circumstances may have affected the case. There was one more case in the Session of 1911, that of Brighton and Hove. Here again an agreement was arrived at by which the company are to pay the Sussex County Council a halfpenny per car mile. In this respect it is on all fours exactly with the case of Rotherham. It will be seen then that up to the present Parliament has never imposed this burden upon any corporation desiring to run these trackless- 1936 trollies outside their boundaries, and it is obvious that if the obligation is to be imposed, a check will probably be given to this, which is undoubtedly a cheap form of traction at the very time when we are all wanting to make it easier for the poorer classes to live outside the large towns amid healthy surroundings and at cheaper rents, and when every encouragement ought to be given to corporations to undertake this work and every check that is possible removed. In the North Ormsby Bill this year the other House decided against the claim of the county council. They say: "The Committee regret that they cannot grant the protection asked for, but we feel strongly that there is a certain amount of injustice involved under the present arrangement, and hope that the whole position will be considered on its merits, and perhaps there will be legislation on the subject before long." In considering the merits of the Keighley case the Committee's decision was no-doubt influenced by the fact that the corporation already have power to run motor omnibuses over this particular road for which they pay nothing at all. The corporation are now proposing to substitute trackless trolleys for these motor omnibuses. So far as my experience goes, and I think every one will admit, the motor omnibus does more to damage the road—
§ Mr. LANE-FOXThe question is extraordinary traffic.
§ Sir C. NICHOLSONThere is no doubt that the motor omnibus does more damage than the trackless trolley, and it is quite natural that it should be so, for the motor omnibus weighs twice as much as the trackless-trolley car, and also carries double the number of people. It seems to me, therefore, that this change will have the effect of reducing the cost of the repair of the roads. And it is unfair to call on the corporation to contribute, especially when you have Keighley as a non-county borough already contributing considerably to the upkeep of these very roads. If and when it becomes a county borough, the point will have to be reconsidered, in view of the Report of the Committee on Financial Relations which was laid before the House last year. My own impression is that a great part of the damage done to this particular road is not caused by motor omnibuses or trackless trolleys, but by the huge motor lorries which are run from Bradford and all the big towns of the immediate neighbourhood, which contribute nothing at all to 1937 the up-keep of the main roads. And this is an additional reason why no contribution should be placed on the ratepayers of Keighley. In fact the whole question of repair of county roads urgently needs consideration. It becomes more complicated every year; and if these bargains as in Rotherham, and Brighton, and Hove are allowed to go on, the matter will become more and more complicated still; and I may urge on the Government to consider whether the time has not arrived to appoint a Commission to settle what are the main roads of the country and to take them off the rates and to put them on the taxpayers, as it is only in this way you will get the burden evenly distributed among all the users of the roads.
I now turn to the question of widening. We have to consider what is the proper width of roads for a trackless trolley and not for any other form of traction. So far as I can judge, very little widening was necessary for this purpose, and we considered that the Clause we inserted was sufficient contribution for the corporation to make. It was decided after a very long controversy in Committee. There was very much doubt whether it ought to go. Eventually we arrived at a compromise, which was carried by the unanimous vote of the Committee. The decision was that in no case should a trackless trolley be run on a road on which the carriage-way was less than fifteen feet. In case of district roads along which the traffic was naturally less than county roads, we decided that if the authority wished to have the carriageway wider than fifteen feet and the corporation agreed, the corporation should pay one-third of the cost of widening. And if the road and the road authorities and the corporation would not come to terms the width of the road between fifteen and seventeen feet should be settled by the Board of Trade. With regard to the county roads, the Committee decided that the same conditions as to cost shall apply, but that the road might be widened up to twenty feet at the discretion of the Board of Trade if the parties could not agree. Beyond that, however, I felt that, in view of the heavy traffic I have already described, the road probably did require widening, and that the county council ought to have done the work before now, and were seeking to recover part of the cost out of the fact that the Keighley Corporation were changing from motor omnibuses to trackless trolleys. That seems to me to be unfair to 1938 Keighley. I may be wrong, but it is the impression I have formed, for it is very hard to see that a road which the county council thought was wide enough for motor omnibuses was not wide enough for trackless trolleys, although the wheel base of the trackless trolley is less than that of the motor omnibus. All these matters have been very carefully considered by the Committee; in fact, I think they spent six days on this portion of the Bill. I am inclined to think sometimes that these Committees go too closely into many matters which come before them. But in this case I do not in the least regret the time which, has been given, because it is a matter of very considerable importance for the future, and the decision which this House gives to-night will naturally settle the procedure for the future, and I sincerely hope the House will confirm the decision which the Committee has given.
§ Mr. BUCKMASTERAfter the very full and clear statement of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) it will not be necessary to detain the House at any length in placing before them the reasons why I ask that this Motion should not be accepted. Let me say, in answer to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, that this question should not, and, I suggest, cannot be properly decided by consideration of a prospect of general legislation on the subject. The real question for the House is whether or not, in relation to this particular instance, the matters which form the subject of objection, and which led the hon. Member to bring forward his Motion, should or should not be entertained. If I can satisfy the House that in this particular case harm would be done were this Motion assented to, that should in itself be a sufficient reason why the whole question of general legislation should be disregarded in the formation of our opinion upon this matter, which is isolated and confined to this particular case. I think a few facts should be stated about the position of Keighley Corporation in relation to this Bill. Keighley is essentially a district exclusively manufacturing. It is of the utmost importance for all people in the district that there should be established some means of cheap and speedy transit between Keighley and the surrounding districts. This has already been recognised, and at this moment there is established by the corporation of Keighley a system of motor omnibuses which it is now desired to replace with a system of track- 1939 less trolleys proposed to be substituted in the place of motor omnibuses.
9.0 P.M.
It is a system which in no way interferes with the user of the road surface beyond that which they now have the right to avail themselves of under the power to run the motor omnibuses. Of course all Members of this House know that the trackless trolley system is one by which by means of a wire a tramcar can use the road without having a tramway. It is because Keighley has attempted to adopt a more efficient method of transit over the road that the opportunity has been taken to raise this objection to their Bill. The objections are twofold. One is that the cost of widening of the road, rendered necessary by the use of the trackless trolley, should be thrown upon the Keighley Corporation, and the other is that they should contribute to the upkeep of the road. Let me deal with the first objection first. It is perfectly clear that the road when widened is to the advantage of every form of traffic which uses the increased facility. It is unjust, simply because in the legitimate use of the highway, there has been introduced a new vehicle and a new method of using the road, that therefore there should be thrown upon the authority which has introduced that new form of vehicle the whole expense of widening the road. The Bill as it stands provides that one-third of the cost of widening should be borne by the local authority. That is a full and very generous burden for them to undertake. It is quite impossible to say that the benefit of the widened road, however caused, will be enjoyed only by one class of traffic. Secondly, as to the point as to whether this particular form of traffic should cause particular expense to be thrown upon this local authority. I submit that it is impossible to distinguish between one form of traffic and another for this purpose. The trackless trolley has been designed for the very purpose of conveying the working population from place to place, yet it is sought to throw upon it a burden of expense that is not borne by any motor vehicle. Motor traffic of all kinds may use this road without such an obligation being thrown upon it. The contribution at the present moment paid by the Keighley corporation for these roads is £3,400 a year. I submit that is abundant, and I very earnestly hope that the House will not accede to this Motion and go back upon the careful and deliberate judgment of the Local Legisla- 1940 tion Committee, and the Committee before whom this Bill was considered, but that they will allow the Bill to go forward in the ordinary course.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI would not have intervened in this Debate if I had not happened to be a member both of the Local Legislation Committee and the Select Committee which considered this Bill, and also of the Standing Committee which considered the question of light railways. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion, that this is a matter of more than local importance. These trackless trollies are at the present moment in there infancy. Before very long a large number of local authorities will adopt these trackless trollies and run them as feeders to their tramway system, and, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the House to-night should come to a very careful decision, and, whatever decision it comes to, that decision undoubtedly will affect, not only this case of Keighley, but every case where trackless trollies may be adopted in the country. The Local Legislation Committee, after very careful consideration I agree, came to the conclusion, in the first place, that the Keighley Corporation was not to pay anything towards the maintenance of the county or district roads. In the second place, we came to the conclusion that they were to pay one-third of the cost of improvements, the remaining two-thirds to be paid by the outside authorities. That was not a unanimous decision, and we actually had a Division, a very rare occurrence, on our very peaceful and non-party Committee, over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) so ably presides. A short time afterwards I attended as a member Standing Committee (B), which was considering the Light Railways Bill. That Committee came to the following decision. We inserted the following Clause:—
"Provided that any such Order shall contain provisions requiring the company, body, or person upon whom the powers thereof are conferred to pay the cost of any alterations or improvements in the road or street made for the purpose of, or rendered necessary by, the trackless-trolley system, and to make a contribution towards the cost of maintaining the road or street, regard being had in determining the amount of such contribution to (amongst other things) the additional expense incurred by the authority by whom the road or street is maintained."
1941 We came to that decision, and, I think, we carried that provision by a fairly large majority. I may say we would have carried it by even a larger majority if the Parliamentary Secretary, who represented the Board of Trade, had not, just before the Division was taken, sent messengers to other Committee Booms and recruited some of the Members who had been considering the Scottish Temperance Bill, and who had not heard the arguments on light railways, to vote on this particular matter. The House will agree that the principle involved in this Bill and in the Light Railways Bill is exactly the same. Therefore it is absolutely absurd for the House to refuse to recommit this Bill, which contains a principle entirely contrary to the principle which was adopted by Standing Committee (B). I should like to refer to one or two points made by the hon. Member who spoke last. He told us that at the present time the Keighley Corporation had the power to run omnibuses. That is perfectly true. They came here, two or three years ago I think, and got power to run motor 'buses. Those motor' buses have not proved a success, because, as one of the witnesses of the Keighley Committee said, they were not properly run. That is the only reason why those motor 'buses have not been successful. They come now and ask for powers to run trackless trollies.
What is the difference between trackless trollies and motor 'buses. The trackless trolley is very much like a tramway. If a corporation or company runs tramways in an outside district, that corporation which runs those tramways have got to pay both for the cost of widening and for the maintenance of the roads. For instance, the London County Council puts down tramways in London and the local authority pays one-third of the cost of widening, and the county council as the tramway authority pays two-thirds. Under this Bill you are reversing that, and you are making the local authority outside pay two-thirds, while the tramway authority is only to pay one-third. In the case of a tramway, the tramway authority has got to maintain not only the track, but also nine inches on each side of the track. What is really our point? The Keighley Corporation are running these tramways for the benefit of people who live at Keighley or work there. If there is a profit, and we are told by the witnesses for Keighley that this is going to be run for profit, that profit goes to the Keighley ratepayers. I do not think any- 1942 body will deny that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do the county council want it?"] I am not saying the county council want it, but what I am saying is this, that you have in every county a very large number of people who live in the agricultural parts and who will never use, and probably never see, these particular trackless trolleys. They certainly will not use them and they are asked to pay towards the cost of maintaining and running those trackless trolleys, while the profit, if there is a profit, goes not to them, but to the Keighley Corporation.
I am told that we ought to see that our roads should be paid for by one authority. I think that would be desirable, but that ought to be done by the Imperial Exchequer. As long as you have your present system, when one authority is responsible for one part of the road and another authority is responsible for another part of the road, you certainly ought to provide that if one authority uses a road maintained by another authority that that authority so using it should contribute towards the cost. There is another and a great difference between the motor 'bus and the trackless trolley. If you give a corporation power to run motor' buses, that does not prevent a private company from running motor 'buses on that road too. If you give a corporation power to run trackless trolleys, to put up standards and all the other apparatus, then you practically give them a monopoly of that particular road. If you do that you ought to see that no other authority shall have to pay for the maintenance of that particular track. The hon. Baronet the Member for Doncaster said it was impossible to settle the exact amount which each authority ought to contribute. All we are asking the House to do is to refer this back to the Committee to allow us to insert a Clause that the exact amount should be settled by arbitration. I quite agree it is absolutely impossible for the House to settle what should be paid in each particular case. That can be only done by arbitration. I do ask the House to recommit this Bill, so that, in any case, we shall be able to settle it on the same lines as the Light Railways Bill was settled in Committee. I hope that the Light Railways Bill will pass in its present form. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to strike off particular Clauses which are contained in that particular Bill at the present time. 1943 If it is their intention to strike out those particular Clauses, I agree that the matter is on an entirely different footing, and the provisions of this Bill will be on exactly the same lines as the general law in the Light Railways Bill. But as I have no information to that effect, I sincerely hope the House will agree to recommit the Bill.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDThe Order Paper contains a Motion standing in my name to recommit the Bill, but for entirely different reasons from those urged by the hon. Member opposite. My Motion suggests that the Bill should be recommitted to the former Committee for the purpose of considering the provision of accommodation for workmen employed on the construction of reservoirs. One would almost imagine, from the speeches which have been delivered, that the. Bill dealt entirely with trackless trollies. The Bill deals with other subjects as well, and I was particularly interested in placing before the House the claims of a very deserving body of men, whose interests have not always been looked after in matters of this description, as prosecutions for want of decent housing in different parts of the country plainly testify. I do not intend to move the Motion standing in my name, but I wish to use this opportunity for the purpose of placing on record an arrangement which has been made with reference to housing accommodation. Since the Motion appeared on the Paper I have received from the promoters' agents, Messrs. Sharpe and Pritchard, a communication on the subject. Amongst other things, they say:—
We further understand that you will be satisfied with an undertaking from us that we shall insert such a Clause when the Bill is in Committee in the Second House, and we accordingly hereby undertake, subject, of course, to the sanction of Parliament, to insert a Clause in the Bill similar to Clause 14 of the Fylde Water Board Bill as introduced into the House of Lords, a copy of which we enclose herewith.I have read the Clause referred to, and find that it is substantially in the words which I propose. Having placed the arrangement on record, I have no wish to deal with the matter further.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI can claim to have one qualification to speak on this matter which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldsmith) does not possess, and that is that I know Keighley most intimately. I was for some years a member of the Keighley Corporation, and I am proud of the fact that I took an active part in the establishment of the admirable municipal 1944 service which it is now proposed to extend. There seems to be a good deal of confusion in the minds of certain Members of the House as to why they propose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). The proposal to refer the Bill back to the Committee was moved in order that the Committee might consider an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. The hon. Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins) took an altogether different line. Personally, I think it is desirable that there should be general legislation governing matters of this description, but, after all, that is not the question that has to be settled to-night. The Keighley Corporation Bill cannot stand over until the House of Commons has had time to deal by general legislation with a highly controversial question of that importance. Any Member of experience knows what the fate of the Keighley Corporation Bill would be if it had to wait until this House settled the question by general legislation. Five or six years ago the Constituency which I represent had before this House a private Bill containing some novel proposals for giving to the Corporation the control of the milk supply. There was at that time a proposal of the Government to deal with the regulation of the milk supply by general legislation, and my corporation were asked to allow the deletion of their provisions on the ground that the Government expected to pass their Bill into law before the end of the Session.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSThat Bill had not gone through Committee.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThat is not my point at all. We had the pledge of the President of the Local Government Board that the matter would be dealt with by general legislation. That is five or six years ago, and the matter has not yet been dealt with. Therefore I think we are perfectly right in assuming that if we accepted the argument of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division it would mean that all the expense incurred by the Keighley Corporation in prosecuting this Bill would be lost, and the Bill would not become law during the present Session. In regard to the general position taken up by the hon. Member for Middleton, the hon. Member spoke very impartially to-night, but I believe he is associated with the County Councils Association, and I can hardly 1945 remember an occasion upon which there has been a conflict of interest in this House between county councils and municipal bodies when the hon. Member has not intervened on the side of the county councils.
Sir RYLAND sADKINSI represent in this House boroughs and urban districts exclusively, and I am sure my hon. Friend has not been so unfortunate as to be here always when I have spoken, or he would not have said what he has.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI think we shall have to consider this question on the grounds advanced by the Mover of the Motion, and I do not think it necessary to add much to what has been said already by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson), and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Buckmaster). Personally, I think the proposal of the county council a most outrageous one, which cannot on any ground be justified. The Corporation of Keighley are not likely to get much financial advantage even if this trolley tramway system is a success. The hon. Member who spoke last on the other side admitted that the motor 'bus service had not been a success. The only people who have gained an advantage from that enterprise of the Keighley population are the people who live in the rural districts and the people in the surrounding villages. The hon. Member said that the trolley tramway system was solely, as I understood him, for the use of the workmen who live in the villages and work at Keighley. Yes, but who is going to get the advantage of that? The Keighley population provides facilities by which the men who do the work can live outside the rating area of the Keighley Corporation. These men are going to get their wages in Keighley, but they will not spend them in Keighley. They are going to pay rent to the landlords in the rural area, and add to the rateable value of the rural area, that is, to help the exchequer of the county council and the rural district authorities. There is no doubt about it whatever, that the result will be an advantage mainly for the people who live, not in Keighley, but in the villages around, who are going to be served by this trolley tramway service.
It is the intention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash that the entire cost of the road improvements shall fall upon the Keighley Corporation. My own opinion is that the proposal in the Bill as it stands that one-third of the cost 1946 should be paid by the Keighley Corporation is altogether unreasonable. It is not likely that any road improvement will be carried out which is not necessitated by the general traffic which passes along the roads. A reference to the Bill will show that the county council ask for the right of imposing upon the Keighley Corporation the cost of widening the streets up to 20 ft. But country by-lanes are very much in the nature of country roads. They are the main arteries which, if they are to be increased where the road is less than 20 ft. wide, show that the county council or the road authorities have been neglecting their duty in the past. On a road where there is so much traffic as there is on these roads there ought to be no case where the road is less than 20 feet wide. It seems to me that the motive behind this proposal is simply to relieve the landlords. The motive and the idea is the same as that embodied in the Agricultural Rates Act, that is to attempt to relieve the rural ratepayer at the expense of the urban ratepayer. If for no other reason than that I should oppose it, on the ground that I am going to give no vote for the further endowment of the landlords. I do not think there has been a single argument advanced from the other side which can influence a single Member who has an unprejudiced mind upon this question.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)It is a matter for regret that the position in regard to this Bill is as it is, seeing that the dispute is after all not a very bitter one, although the case is being fully argued out. The case being as it is the Board of Trade cannot support the Motion for the recommittal of this Bill. The hon. Member for Stowmarket Division supported that proposition as a way of bringing this Bill into harmony with the Light Railways Bill, that having been altered in Committee upstairs. In the first place, I do not see any prospect that the recommittal of the Bill would bring that about. There is no security at all that the Committee would do as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash wishes. In the second place, the hon. Member for Stowmarket no doubt realises that it is far from certain what will be the final form of the Light Railways Bill as regards the particular question which we are now discussing. The hon. Member ascribed to some personal activity of mine the comparative smallness of the majority for the 1947 change which he and his friends were able to make in the Bill. If my memory does not deceive me that was because in the Division, which was quite regrettably on party lines, the particular policy of the hon. Member and his friends gained by the accident of a temporary distribution of Members in different Committees. I merely say this, since the hon. Member raised it, though it is not strictly relevant to the Debate. As the hon. Member realises, the final form of the Light Railways Bill is far from fixed, and as he granted in his closing words, the case for the proposal to recommit the present Bill on that view is rather weakened.
On general grounds the Board of Trade cannot give any countenance to the general line followed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash and those who support him in this matter. It has been pointed out that the promoters are taking the opportunity to penalise one form of traffic to make good the injury done to the roads by other forms of traffic which make no contribution. I do not pretend even that if this Bill goes through in proper form you will have an ideal solution of the question. There may have to be some general legislation on this subject of the maintenance of roads; but, as another Member has pointed out, you cannot secure that ideal by merely recommitting this Bill. It cannot be secured even by passing the Light Railways Bill in any form, for the Light Railways Bill does not lay down general legislation. It merely empowers the light railways authority to authorise such undertakings. It sets down certain conditions under which they are to be authorised, but as it at present stands it will not interfere with any scheme or system authorised by Parliament. That is a very different thing from a general argument for an all-round readjustment of liabilities and of assessments for the maintenance of the roads. That ideal cannot be obtained by any course we may take upon this Bill. It seems to me that the course taken by the Committee was, on the whole, substantially and notably the better course. They had decided that the trolley system should not be penalised in the way that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash wishes. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash himself does not deny, I think, that the trackless trolley system would not cause such injury and wear and tear to the roads as is caused by other forms of traffic actually going at the present time.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXOther forms of traffic are liable to pay compensation for extraordinary traffic, but the provision which makes that possible is expressly excluded in Clause 57 of this Bill.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONCertain other forms of traffic do come under the principle of extraordinary traffic, but the kind of traffic which is represented by the trackless trolley is not a kind of traffic that you can justly penalise in that way. The trackless trolley system is really in danger of being excluded, steam-rollered out, by the provision that the hon. Gentleman would like to establish. The Board of Trade has actually authorised one or two schemes in which by an agreement a certain rate per mile was paid. It cannot pretend to lay down a fixed rule for a mileage payment. We must set our faces against the very definite and very emphatic assertion of the principle for which the hon. Member contends, that you should enable road authorities to tax these undertakings to the extent to which he proposes. As has been shown, Keighley already contributes in a large degree. Further, all these trackless trolley systems are rateable on their installation, and can to that extent be made to contribute, whilst other traffic may use the road and not undergo any charge at all. In view of the careful discussion and the careful handling that the subject was given in Committee upstairs, and also in view of the decision that the Committee has taken, I can do nothing but advise the House to refuse the Motion for recommitment, and allow this Bill to go forward in the proper way. Let me remind the House this is not merely a Bill dealing with a trackless trolley system. The Section dealing with trolley traction and motor omnibuses is only one part of a Bill which contains nine parts. The other parts deal with water supply, street work, loans, electricity, and so forth, and it would be a very serious matter indeed to hang up such a Bill as this quite indefinitely, for that would be the effect of the course proposed, simply to secure one disputed point upon which there is no agreement between the Keighley Corporation and the county authority. I think the hon. Members urging the recommital of the Bill will see that even if this matter is not settled to their satisfaction it would be a more fair and publicly expedient course to let the Bill go through and to leave to future legislation or future arrangement any adjustment what they may 1949 still think to be necessary as between the Keighley Corporation and the county authority.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXAfter hearing the explanation on behalf of the Government, and more particularly as several of those supporting the Bill are not here, owing to a misunderstanding as to a possible settlement being arrived at I shall, if hon. Members are agreed, withdraw my Amendment. I hope that the Government itself, if it does deal with this question as a matter of general legislation, will see that all the municipalities shall receive absolutely unanimous treatment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill, as amended, considered. Amendments (proposed by promoters) agreed to.
§ Bill to be read the third time.